Social Links

Run of Site Leaderboard

6 responsesSubscribe to comments

  1. There is nothing simple about poverty. I would suggest Ms. Raynor is not a good example of this situation at all. She is a rare bird. As an older American, I begrudge her nothing. She is right; poverty is about more than lack of money.

    One of the most important things we need to look at when discussing poverty is how POLICIES promote and sustain it.

    I am hoping we’re reaching the end of this series, which was roundly criticized by many and frankly not of the caliber we hope to see in Vt Digger.

  2. Barbara Morrow is correct when she says that Ms Raynor is a rare bird, not rare in her generation but certainly part of a group that is disappearing fast. She is also correct when she points out that poverty is promoted and sustained by policies. And exploring, and changing, this is really important.

    However, Prudence Pease is also correct when she points out the insidious nature of the class system. This system is alive and well in this country too, it is not just a figment of British movies and television shows. Policies certainly keep people “in their place” but making the switch to “my place is everywhere” requires freeing the mind as well.

    I understand some of the criticisms of these articles however, they have also made some interesting points, increased awareness of some good programs and hopefully will get a meaningful discussion going.

  3. I’m a proponent of social welfare programs and it is encouraging that someone like Prudence Pease is helping other figure out how to break the cycle of poverty. I usually dismiss the conservative argument that welfare programs are a crutch, but clearly they are used this way by some. Sandy Raynor says she practices “voluntary simplicity”, but in fact she has is living off the welfare system by choice instead of circumstance. Social Security is earned during a lifetime of working and paying into the system. In contrast, food stamps and Section 8 housing vouchers are a taxpayer-funded handout. I’m all for living simply, but living off your neighbors’ largesse shouldn’t be considered “voluntary simplicity”. I also applaud Ms. Raynor for choosing “freedom over the seduction of shopping”, but I think each able-bodied citizen needs to contribute to the system at least what they plan to take from the system. We need to break this cultural acceptance among poor families that Section 8 and food stamps are a “paycheck”. That way there will be enough to go around for those who are truly disabled or infirmed.

  4. Ms. Raynor has every right to live her life the way she wants to..however she is not entitled to 3Squares or subsidized housing because she chooses to live life simply. Can the progressives and liberals now grasp why centrists and conservatives grumble about the corruption taking place within the social welfare system?

    This is what is wrong with the programs…they were designed as a stop gap to prevent hunger during hard times…not as a lifetime entitlement! That is why it will become harder and harder to really allow the safety net programs to be financially sustainable for those who truly need it.

    Root out this type of abuse and one might find much more bi-partisan support for paying higher taxes and fees.

  5. Very grateful to VT digger for posting this series. Please don’t turn this site into an echo chamber for one flavor of whatever passes for politics in America.

    This series has been well-written and ambitious and I think the critical commentary adds to it as a source of information for Vermonters. Not running it at all would have been a net loss. Appreciate the editorial vision.

  6. ” Root out this type of abuse and one might find much more bi-partisan support for paying higher taxes and fees.”

    I would also like to root out the types of abuse and corruption which work to keep people in such poverty that these programs are about the only things that they can count on. That is the real crime.

Leave a Reply

Comment policy

VTD requires that all commenters identify themselves by first and last name. You may wonder why we don't accept anonymous comments. The short answer is: We want to keep the discourse civil.

You might rightly ask, since most online newspapers accept anonymous posts from readers, what makes VTD so special?

The long answer is: Anonymous comments don't support our mission. We are a nonprofit news organization dedicated to enhancing democracy through in-depth journalism. Our role is to foster a civil online discourse, and one very simple and effective way to do that is to require commenters to identify themselves. This isn't a new idea, of course. This is the way newspapers have treated letters to the editor since time immemorial.

As a result of our comment policy, VTD has created a safe zone for readers who want to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy

VTDigger.org does not share specific information about our readers with other entities. Email addresses we collect through our subscription list and comment submissions are kept private.

We use Google analytics to generate aggregated data regarding the size and geographic distribution of our readership. This information helps us gauge how many readers come to the website and what towns they live in. It does not include addresses or other identifying characteristics about our readers.

Donate Today

We're an independent nonprofit organization, your donation helps fund the digging, and, it's tax deductible.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Part 11: Moving out of poverty takes more than money"